Journalism School. Glad to see they finally spoke up on the issue.
About time. Interesting that the point is made about how it seems as if
the MSM is acting as an additional arm of the WH re-election staff.
Does not mention bias but he really should since that is a huge part of
the problem:
Why did SF Chronicle let WH official complain anonymously?
by Jim Romenesko
Published Apr. 29, 2011 1:01 pm
Updated Apr. 29, 2011 3:38 pm
Romenesko Letters
David Cay Johnston believes the Chronicle should have named the official
who complained about the paper posting a video of protesters at an Obama
fundraiser. "To let government officials complain anonymously is to
treat the government as a power unto itself rather than a creation of
the people (see Constitution, preamble)," he writes. "Why did editors
Ward Bushee and Phil Bronstein go along with granting the government
official who complained the privilege of not being named? If no
privilege was granted why do they withhold these crucial facts from
readers?" In his letter to Romenesko, Johnston also is critical of
"amateurs" in the White House press office. || Read the full letter.
From DAVID CAY JOHNSTON: The erosion of the most basic journalism
standards is vividly illustrated today by the San Francisco Chronicle's
appalling coverage of a story about itself and the Obama White House.
The story also reminds us of the continuing, though narrowed,
disconnect between candidate Obama's promises on open government and the
conduct of his taxpayer-paid press operatives, some of whom continue to
behave as if journalists are mere flacks.
First, the Chronicle.
Chronicle Washington correspondent Carolyn Lochhead reports that "the
White House threatened to exclude" the paper from pooled coverage of Bay
Area events for violating White House pool reporter rules because Carla
Marinucci of the Chronicle took video of an anti-Obama protest over
Private Bradley Manning. The Chronicle posted the video at its website
the next day, but bizarrely does not have it on the page where
Lochhead's article appears today.
Those rules require print reporters to stick to taking notes and
forbid them from posting images, audio or video even when citizens
around them are using recording devices.
Reporters who agree to rules must abide by them or reasonably expect
sanctions for violating their promises. The time to complain about rules
is in advance, before you give your word, even when the rules are stupid.
But which government official complained? And exactly what did this
unnamed official say? And to whom did they complain? Lochhead does not
tell readers. Instead Lochhead writes: "The White House press office
would not speak on the record about the issue."
The privilege of speaking in any way short of on the record by name
and title is solely and exclusively in the control of the journalist.
Did the Chronicle grant the complaining official the privilege of
complaining without taking responsibility for their words? Why would any
journalist do that? All complaints (excluding psychiatric cases) should
be heard, but never anonymous complaints from government officials. To
let government officials complain anonymously is to treat the government
as a power unto itself rather than a creation of the people (see
Constitution, preamble).
Why did editors Ward Bushee and Phil Bronstein go along with granting
the government official who complained the privilege of not being named?
If no privilege was granted why do they withhold these crucial facts
from readers?
Are Bushee and Bronstein in fear of the administration? Evidently not,
as they ran a story. So what could they be thinking in withholding this
information from their readers? Or not thinking, perhaps?
If Lochhead, Bushee, Brownstein or some other Chronicle journalist did
grant an anonymity privilege before hearing the complaint they should
stand up, acknowledge their bush league error and tell readers about
this mistake.
If no such privilege was granted before the complaint was made then
the official should be named and his or her exact words reported, as
well as to whom the complaint(s) were made.
And even if the privilege of was granted as to name then there is no
reason not to quote the precise words of the complaint, as well as
telling how high up the complaint came (White House press? Secret
Service? A third party?), how it was delivered – phone, email, mail or
in person – and when.
Among other things this would allow readers to judge for themselves if
the official government complaint constituted a "threat," as the
Chronicle reports and editorializes about, or a mere admonition that the
Chronicle must promise to abide by whatever rules it voluntarily agreed to.
Again: the journalist, not the source, controls the contours of the
communication. If you give your word you may have to go to jail to
defend it.
Whether any communication is on background or on deep background is
entirely in the control of the journalist. However, the journalist also
must take responsibility for her actions. "Off the record" makes
information useless, so when some says that is their wish it is useful
to spend a moment explaining the variations of less than fully on the
record attribution so the other person understands these crucial, but
subtle, issues.
Reporters should be careful about granting any privilege, insisting on
good reasons (the safety of life, whistleblowing). When a government
official makes a complaint they should be told their complaint will be
heard in full, but fully on the record and if otherwise then readers,
listeners and viewers deserve a full explanation.
Privilege is granted before, not after, words are spoken.
The citizen who rarely speaks with a reporter may be due more leeway,
but anyone in a high government post such as a White House press job
knows the rules and should be held to them.
The Chronicle also needs to tell readers the reasons it broke its word
when it agreed to the pool coverage rules, rather than doing the
honorable thing: complain first and if you cannot abide by the rules
either do not participate in the pool or declare your intentions. If the
Chronicle did complain then readers should be told about that.
To be clear, the White House rule here is incredibly outdated and is
now stupid, but if you choose to violate your word then you must assume
full responsibility for it.
The Chronicle needs to publish a corrective naming the official who
made the complaint with details or explaining why it cannot do so
without behaving dishonorably. And the top editors need to demonstrate
leadership on this basic issue of attribution and identification.
Now, the Obama administration.
Candidate Obama promised a fresh era of transparency and openness
after eight years of unnamed spokesman, anti-robot technology to hide
official information from search engines, outing an undercover CIA agent
and other conduct inimical to a free society and official accountability.
A week after the inauguration I reported on the amateur-hour,
controlling and withholding White House press operation for the Columbia
Journalism Review online.
Some critics argued it was much too soon to raise such issues. Since
then a number of other journalists have written about the same and other
problems with Obama's White House press operation, which is heavily
staffed by people with no experience as working reporters and who
sometimes treat reporters as if they were paid flacks working for the
administration.
I have found at cabinet agency public information shops that questions
about the reasons information is sought, and refusal to provide
information because of the expectation that a report will be critical,
persists in the agencies, despite the candidate's promises. Obama should
be held strictly accountable for these failures since he set a standard
with voters.
From Nixon through GWBush I always got White House press operations on
the record by name. Only Obama press aides sometimes continue to try and
speak without identifying themselves fully and asserting a pre-emptive
right to determine what is less than fully on the record.
A White House reporter, since departed, told me last year about an
inappropriate use of a backgrounder by the Obama White House. He said
when he complained no one other reporter backed him up. He said some of
the others later indicated they were fearful that being seen as
antagonistic to the administration would put their jobs in danger at a
time when thousands of journalists are out of work. There's a word for
that: cowardice.
The Obama White House needs to make its press operation just what the
candidate promised and, if necessary, replace amateurs with people who
have actually experience as journalists.
Reporters need to be clear and firm on standards of attribution.
Publishers, editors and producers need to tell their reporters in no
uncertain terms that they are not to be cowed by this or any other
administration and that hat will put their jobs in danger is not being
aggressive about getting the facts on the record with officials being
identified in full so they can be held accountable.
We all need to work against any further erosion of one of the most
basic standards of journalism, work vital to making those we temporarily
put in power accountable.
I hope those who read these words will email them to those who need to
hear them – Obama, Daniel Pfeiffer, Jay Carney, Bronstein, Bushee and
Lochhead among others — or print them out and post them in the newsroom,
including the White House press room.
—————
I invited Ward Bushee to respond. He says there were "off-the-record
exchanges required by key people in the White
House communications office who told us it would remove our reporter,
then threatened retaliation to Chronicle and Hearst reporters if we
reported on the ban, and then recanted to say our reporter might not be
removed afterall." He adds that "If the White House has indeed decided
not to ban our reporter, we would like an on-the-record notice that she
will remain the San Francisco print pool reporter."
Related Posts
White House upset with SF Chronicle for posting protest video
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment